The wickedness of the climate change deniers

I have just been reading a Reuter’s report from India, about the suffering endured by poor, honest, hard-working climate scientists, as they seek to warn a careless world of looming climate disaster, only to be attacked, threatened and vilified by the “climate deniers”.   My heart bleeds.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that “climate deniers” do not exist — or if they do, I’ve yet to meet one.  It is a self-evident fact that the earth’s climate has changed, often rapidly and substantially, over geological time.  It is well-known that we have had a series of warm and cool cycles over the last two thousand years.  We have all seen the paintings of Ice Fairs on the frozen Thames in the seventeenth century, when oxen were roasted on great fires on the ice.  Anyone who denies the clear fact that the climate changes is either ignorant or mad.

There is of course a legitimate debate to be had about why the climate changes.  Until recent years, everyone understood that climate was multifactorial, and it was clear that the primary drivers were solar activity and astronomical cycles.  It is only in recent years that the good and the great have decided we were wrong, and that the only significant cause of climate change is atmospheric CO2 (which is merely a trace gas in the atmosphere, and is not even the most significant greenhouse gas — which is water vapour).  They seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is almost zero correlation over time between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, or that over geological time CO2 levels have sometimes been well over ten times higher than today.  Or that the highest concentrations of atmospheric CO2 occurred during a major Ice Age.

Two lines from the Reuters report caught my eye.  The first was from Michael Mann:  “The attacks against climate science represent the most highly coordinated, heavily financed, attack against science that we have ever witnessed”.  Michael Mann was, of course, the progenitor of the infamous “Hockey Stick” graph, one of the most discredited artefacts in the history of science.  He is the man who resisted scrutiny of his data and his methods, and fought tooth and nail against releasing details of his work, which might have enabled others to check it.  He was the man who (in effect) relied on a few rather atypical trees in California to construct climate scenarios that defied reason.  He was the man who grafted together two wholly unrelated data series to support his case, because neither series alone supported his hypothesis. But he failed to make it clear that he had done so.  He was also a close associate of those splendid guys at the University of East Anglia, those of the e-mails scandal, who worked so hard to “hide the decline” in late twentieth century data.  Then he seems hurt when people challenge his findings.

But “heavily financed”?   Reuters mention a Greenpeace report released last month, saying that “ExxonMobil gave nearly $9 million to entities linked to the climate denialist camp between 2005 and 2008″.  Wow. $9 million.  How does that compare to the literally Billions of dollars that have been poured into the Warmist cause?  The research funding for people like Michael Mann, and the UEA’s CRU, from governments and foundations and institutions?  The vast market created in trading carbon credits, which is being fraudulently used and abused to generate profits on the back of imaginary trades in a virtual commodity, and which is siphoning off vast sums from developed countries to Russia and China and India and developing countries through the UN’s “Clean Development Mechanism”?  What about the millions that Al Gore has personally made through his espousal of the Warmist cause?

Look at the companies (including major oil companies) who are profiting from green hysteria, whether through emissions trading schemes, or by becoming rent seekers in heavily-subsidised green energy programmes.  In the UK alone climate mitigation measures put in place by this Labour government (which pray heaven will be gone between my typing these words and publishing the piece) will cost tens of billions of pounds.  Look at the businesses and scientists and researchers whose jobs depend on Warmism.  Look at the environmental journalists, like the odious Geoffrey Lean at the Daily Telegraph, who depend on Warmism for their pay-cheque — never mind the Climate Change Managers and Global Warming Awareness Officers on every local council, that you pay for through your council tax, and the DEFRA advertising campaigns, and the massive propaganda programmes designed to terrify the children in our schools.

The truth is that climate alarmism has become the most expensive, and the most wasteful, project in the history of the world.  It is junk economics built on junk science.  It amounts to no more than hot air, yet it looks set to beggar our grandchildren.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to The wickedness of the climate change deniers

  1. jamie says:

    Hi Roger

    Interesting article. Sadly, it is becoming more and more common that people have the same reaction as you and I can understand why. However, in my humble opinion, I believe that you are missing the point entirely.

    My advice is to forget about the AGW debate altogether and focus on the far more important facts:

    An economy that functions on infinite growth but which relies on finite resources is eventually going to come a cropper!
    Continually spewing pollution into the air, toxins into the oceans and filth into our earth is eventually, likewise, going to screw up our future.

    Now, as far as your anger against the great global warming business goes, that’s the way you feel and I am not going to argue against that.

    But, in terms of the key issues here, I believe that you are way off the mark. But then, you won’t be around when the real damage is done, I will be. I am fifteen. Your opinions are really rather irrelevant as a result but please consider where I am coming from.

    • Harry van Loon says:

      You are absolutely right. The climate debate is based on nonsense; but there are four points we should worry about:
      1. Pollution of air, soil, and water.
      2. Exploitation of non-renewable resources.
      3. Extinction of flora and fauna.
      4. Population growth.
      The climate will take of itself, but those four points will not.

      • Harry van Loon says:

        And if you are worried about pollution, just stop it. It won’t cost trillions

    • Geoff Tremain says:

      Your view of the future is a little too malthusian. One of the UN’s own likely projections is for population to peak about 2050, plateau, and then decline. The cause? Improving material security in developing nations causes lower birth rates. Its already happened in the West, where population growth is negative & has been for some time. The population explosion is quite likely to turn out another fizzer, and that’s without anyone doing anything.

    • Wee Willie says:

      You make the point that you are 15. That suggests your position is largely influenced by what you have been told at school and subsequent discussion with teachers and fellow students.
      Have you, as many sceptical people have done, carried out your own detailed research into the claims of the climate scientists?
      Have you examined other and differing views expressed by many highly respected scientists and considered the vast amount of research which does not support the AGW hypothesis?
      If you haven’t done this, and from your post it seems that you have not, then how can you be so sure that you are correct in you assertions that there is real damage on the horizon?
      When I went to school, I was taught to challenge everything and to take nothing on trust.
      There may be much for you still to learn.

  2. PVSheridan says:

    You are absolutely correct, there is no such thing as a “climate denier.” Spring comes every year, and would without any inputs/denials from humanity.

    Indeed, the degradation of the climate science discussions was purposeful AND represented the first/initial “attack.” In the alternative, it is anything BUT an attack to question the validity of ANY aspect of the scientific process. But that is the motivation of those that seek to commercialize anything, including their hidden agenda to commercialize and politicize climate science. By degrading any science discussion to the commercial or the political, they are successful in their ploy to divert our attention to the emotional and the subjective.

    An example is the person above that CLAIMS to be named “jamie” and claims to be “fifteen.” Those of us who were NOT born-yesterday recognize this type of rhetoric for the charlatanism that it is. This charlatan would attempt to convince the unwary that the “key issue” is what he NOW says it is; this type of ephemeral, ever-changing circus act has riddled their degradation from the beginning where, as you mention, “everyone understood that climate was multifactorial,” but then these “jamie” types recently proclaimed “that we were wrong, and that the only significant cause of climate change is atmospheric CO2.” At that point the “Jamie” types demanded that we mindlessly parrot the term “global warming,” and ONLY call it “global warming.”

    Fast forward through several iterations of their rhetorical sputum, and now they CLAIM to be concerned about “key issues,” and that such involves “pollution.” Were these matters not so serious, this ever-changing menagerie would be laughable. Specifically, at no time have those of us that had been attacked as “climate deniers” EVER declared that pollution was not a “key issue.” Indeed, unlike this charlatan that CLAIMS to be “fifteen,” doing so anonymously, we have ALWAYS been declaratory in our concern that spending TRILLIONS (with a ‘T’) on AGW would divert us from the collective need to protect the environment. It was during these times that these charlatan “jamie” types were declaring carbon dioxide to be “pollution.” Remember that?

    Think about it this way, the penultimate charlatan is very good at what they do: THEY COMMERCIALIZE AND POLITICIZE BUT CONTINUOUSLY CLAIM THAT THE “DENIER” IS THE ONE GUILTY OF DOING SO! It should not surprise you therefore that these anonymous “jamie” charlatans would now be full-circle and now claiming that it was they that have been concerned about “key issues” from the very beginning, but those darn “deniers” were in their way.

    These anonymous “jamie” charlatans are pathetic, but have fooled no one, other than those born yesterday.

  3. It is interesting that the UK government does not admit to funding CRU research. This was revealed by an official response to an E-petition earlier this year.

    An analysis of this government statement, in relation to released Climategate material and other sources shows that CRU has benefited from government (UK taxpayer) funding despite government assertions otherwise. The article can be found here:

    http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/mem1_1.htm

  4. psheridan says:

    Roger:

    You are absolutely correct, there is no such thing as a “climate denier.” Spring comes every year, and would without any inputs/denials from humanity.

    Indeed, the degradation of the climate science discussions was purposeful AND represented the first/initial “attack.” In the alternative, it is anything BUT an attack to question the validity of ANY aspect of the scientific process. But that is the motivation of those that seek to commercialize anything, including their hidden agenda to commercialize and politicize climate science. By degrading any science discussion to the commercial or the political, they are successful in their ploy to divert our attention to the emotional and the subjective.

    An example is the person above that CLAIMS to be named “jamie” and claims to be “fifteen.” Those of us who were NOT born-yesterday recognize this type of rhetoric for the charlatanism that it is. This charlatan would attempt to convince the unwary that the “key issue” is what he NOW says it is; this type of ephemeral, ever-changing circus act has riddled their degradation from the beginning where, as you mention, “everyone understood that climate was multifactorial,” but then these “jamie” types recently proclaimed “that we were wrong, and that the only significant cause of climate change is atmospheric CO2.” At that point the “Jamie” types demanded that we mindlessly parrot the term “global warming,” and ONLY call it “global warming.”

    Fast forward through several iterations of their rhetorical sputum, and now they CLAIM to be concerned about “key issues,” and that such involves “pollution.” Were these matters not so serious, this ever-changing menagerie would be laughable. Specifically, at no time have those of us that had been attacked as “climate deniers” EVER declared that pollution was not a “key issue.” Indeed, unlike this charlatan that CLAIMS to be “fifteen,” doing so anonymously, we have ALWAYS been declaratory in our concern that spending TRILLIONS (with a ‘T’) on AGW would divert us from the collective need to protect the environment. It was during these times that these charlatan “jamie” types were declaring carbon dioxide to be “pollution.” Remember that?

    Think about it this way, the penultimate charlatan is very good at what they do: THEY COMMERCIALIZE AND POLITICIZE BUT CONTINUOUSLY CLAIM THAT THE “DENIER” IS THE ONE GUILTY OF DOING SO! It should not surprise you therefore that these anonymous “jamie” charlatans would now be full-circle and now claiming that it was they that have been concerned about “key issues” from the very beginning, but those darn “deniers” were in their way.

    These anonymous “jamie” charlatans are pathetic, but have fooled no one, other than those born yesterday.

  5. austin says:

    What Jamie misses is that the alarmists are wasting billions of dollars which could be used to clean up the environment all over the world. See the Real Environmental Crisis by Berkley professior Jack Hollander for specidifs. Also, when we run out of oil, we will find another effective energy method. We always do–you don’t see many chariots on NYC streets.

  6. Mike D. says:

    Well, I guess I must be ignorant and mad, because I don’t see that a 1 deg F “change” over the last 100 years significantly altered the climate anywhere.

    I note that you qualify your aspersion with “geologic time”. I would agree that the climate HAS changed over the last 1.8 million years, repeatedly, from long glacial stadials to short interglacial warm periods and back, like clockwork, on roughly a 105,000 year cycle.

    But to say that the climate is changing rapidly and significantly right now is self-evidently false. Weather changes, but not climate. There is zero chance that palm trees are going to be widespread in Minnesota, or that Florida winters will be snowy, or that Mediterranean climates will become boreal, or vice versa, in the next few centuries.

    Climates (not weather) have been pretty darn constant over the last 11,500 years. There have been cycles of minor temperature changes and a general decline by a few degrees since the Holocene Climatic Optimum, but a degree or two change does NOT constitute a change in “climate”.

    That’s just my opinion, and as you say, I must be ignorant or mad. In my opinion you are… entitled to your opinion. I refrain from characterizing or insulting you, but you can guess what I think.

  7. Jack says:

    Oh, no, another global warming whiner! Poor me! I tried to fool the world and now the world found out everything I said isn’t true. No, no, my friend Al Gore will lose millions because he won’t get his cap and trade scam! Poor me!

  8. Norfolk Dumpling says:

    This comment is aimed at “Jamie”.
    It is brought to you by a professionally and academically qualified electrical engineer. Jamie, I do not like pulling rank but your arguments show your young age. You cannot see that you have been hood-winked, indoctrinated and brainwashed by political and educational propagandarised stealth by people who are totally incapable of seeing the scienifically proper picture painted by the numbers. If you cannot understand the numbers then you will be equally unable to see through the rhetoric of AGW scam and a low carbon mantra. May I suggest that you broaden your own AGW knowledge base through necessarily the Internet. Make no mistake, if I and my many professional colleagues, whose scientific assertions are dismissed, had worked the figures 50 years ago into a picture to advocate renewable energy, we would have advised that path because we are only interested in benefit to mankind, not personal financing, whim and power as displayed by the large political caste.
    Sorry to dampen your argument. You are obviously prepared to investigate, so I would suggest that you do that privately and shut out school, Miliband, Gore, IPCC and DECC AGW propaganda. Google ‘Joanne Nova’, ‘Climate Audit’,’Viv Forbes,’I Love my carbon dioxide’ just to get started. They will lead to others.
    You will then realise that the likes of Roger Helmer and myself and many more do not want you to find your future world usurped but want you to be as fulfilled as we have been. That means seeing through the smokescreen of greed.
    Also, the Wealth of nation[s] is created through converting the earth’s raw and scarce resources into objects others can use such as food, water, machinery, emergency services. It definitely is not created by printing money, Government debt and investment in non-wealth creation employment or even consumers’ credit.
    Engineering and manufacturing wealth pays for ALL the salaries, pensions, expenses and taxes that keep society running. The only way that Government SPENDING can enable that world is by investment in Research and Development which USED to be part of various Ministries’ responsibilities, not by engaging “Consultants” for Time and Motion studies or to see if policies are fleecing enough from the electorate.
    Did you know that every 1 megaWatt of renewable POWER has to have 100%-24/365 backup from conventional power stations. This means that, in the full audit, renewables CREATE carbon dioxide emissions [Good!]. And they are not wind “farms” but wind power stations – do not sound so cosy and delighful then.
    Good Luck in your search for the REAL TRUTH.

  9. P T Guest says:

    You must be saying that it was quite wrong to ban the burning of coal in London in the 1960s in order to prevent the smogs that were common at the time? The climate is changing, that is not in any dispute. Maybe the best idea would be to stop trying to make political capital out of it and try to see if anything can be done to prevent the change impacting upon our own lives? Or am I being unreasonably lfty here?

  10. Patrickdj says:

    Roger Helmer, wow another “denier” spreading lies put out by the whole denier industry, you’re a disgrace to mankind.
    To answer some of your crap comments:-
    1/ Yes the earths climate has been changing for millions of years, but NEVER in the direction it the direction it is moving now in the hisory of homo sapiens sapiens. We have disrupted the natural cycle of climate change.
    2/ It has been long established for more than 150 years that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – the difference between it and water vapour is very simple, it lasts everywhere in the atmosphere for hundreds of year whereas water vapour is not everywhere and only lasts for a few hours or days.
    3/ Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is not infamous. His work and the graphic results have been exonorated a number of times despite the constant constant attacks of pillocks like you who have yet to put up a single alternative stury that proves him wrong or you right. All you can do is pick unsustainable faults with his and other scientists work. Pathetic.
    4/ ExonnMobil have been funding the denialists for more than ten years and the fact is they’ve spent more like US$25 million on AGW denial. But they’re not alone, Koch Industries have spend something like nearly US$50 million in the same period, then there are the likes of the American Petroleum Institute, Western Dirstibuters and the American chamber of Commerce who have also contributed heavily to the denial of AGW anf lobbying, we just don’t know how much they’ve contributed. You mention funding for climate scientists and deliberately misrepresent the grants funding process – you know it as well as I do that the funding goes to the institution involved not the person, plus, all this money is publicly accounted for.
    You mention “odious Geoffrey Lean at the Daily Telegraph”, well I’ll be buggered. what about that other really odious journalist at the Daily Telegraph, the serial denier James Delingpole, who is paid for the lies he spreads. The point about both these people though it is their employer who pays their wages, not the public purse.
    Oh, and why we’re on the subject, all your denial nonsense has not stopped the world continuing to warm or stopped the glaciers from melting.

    • Mark says:

      Co2 at best, sticks around about five years, this hundred of years nonsense is another creation of the AGW crowd. The AGWs had to get rid of that as well as the medieval warm period. One’s suspensions should rise when someone tries to rewrite history. The to bad the sheepeople whom follow the likes of Hanson and Mann don’t understand that.

    • Wee Willie says:

      You need to do some homework before posting a reply such as this.
      Your “facts” are unsound and unsupported.
      Rather than jumping in to criticise, why not spend just a little time looking for yourself at the facts and evidence.
      Put to one side the scary stories and alarming reports so popular in the media.
      Just look at the facts.

    • Garry says:

      Sorry Patrick, you are really off the mark with your comments an as Mark says, you need to do some homework, lots of it.
      Just to help you get started, here’s a link to an article showing that the Royal Society has already had to rethink its position on AGW. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece
      Seems that sceptism is not anti science after all – rather a very necessary part of it.

  11. Tim says:

    We in Australia started a political party called The Climate Sceptics, http://www.climatesceptics.com.au when all our politicians lost their senses on this crap. We ran candidates in by elections, got new coverage, letter drops, political lobbying and bought various high profile sceptics to Australia for Public Meetings. RESULT – Prime Minister dumps our proposed Emmissions Trading Scheme 3 weeks ago never to be spoken of again. Britain is the epicentre of this scam. i suggest you do the same as we did and put this nonsence to the sword. OH don’t forget the enquiry after to ensure that all the people who propergated this nonsense never hold a public office for the rest of their lives.

  12. Pingback: La maldad de los negacionistas « PlazaMoyua.org

  13. viejecita says:

    Loved the Harry Van Loon post:

    “there are four points we should worry about:
    1. Pollution of air, soil, and water.
    2. Exploitation of non-renewable resources.
    3. Extinction of flora and fauna.
    4. Population growth.”

    And we always should think about those four points from the human interest aspect , That is : the consequences of not having safe water to drink, or not enough fish or food to eat, or having to go cold in winter because petrol has run out, and so on.
    The emphasis on Animal on Trees, and on the Earth, and their rights, is quite ridiculous.

  14. Phillip Bratby says:

    It must be distressing being patrickdj. Nobody takes any notice of a person of great ignorance. He is clearly scientifically illiterate and just repeats the propaganda he has been indoctrinated with.

  15. kdk33 says:

    “ExonnMobil have been funding the denialists for more than ten years and the fact is they’ve spent more like US$25 million on AGW denial. ”

    The bastards. How can underfunded alarmists compete.

    oh wait…

  16. 9 or 25 million dollars is a drop in the ocean the australian government is spending 90 million dollars a year for a climate change department(to administer the carbon tax when its voted into law) which has been put on hold to 2013 with everyone still on full pay seems to me the book is skewed to pushing a carbon tax governments make a big noise about climate change but they appear to only want money raised by this new world wide tax.

  17. Michael Cejnar says:

    Well said, Roger.
    For the well meaning greenies here, we all want less pollution, energy security and preserved nature.
    However, building this on a lie that CO2 is a pollutant and will overheat the earth will not bring these things about.

    We are not ‘dumping’ CO2 into the atmosphere – we contribute only 3-4% to the 96% emitted by nature.

    CAGW will only make some people very rich and the UN too powerful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s